This is apparently the folk myth that won't die. The money that Iran received through the JCPOA was Iranian money already owed to Iran but frozen in foreign bank accounts due to sanctions. Had no deal been achieved, the sanctions regime would have ended, and Iran would have gotten the money anyway.

@Mark:

War breaks out in Middle East between two nuclear powers. One of them a primary supporter of international terrorism.

Iran is not a nuclear power, and the JCPOA significantly limits Iran's nuclear program. Even the current administration cannot point to a single substantial violation of the JCPOA by Iran.

Latest discovery via Amazon Prime streaming music recommendation: Singer-songwriter Annie Bosko. I really like her sound. She only has a six-song EP from 2015 on Amazon plus one random single, but she also has a lot of other songs on YouTube.

This was the Week that we witnessed our future expanded by a system of rockets that land and take off over and over, ready to run by the 10s of thousands, like trains on schedule regular for all needs and cargo.A single Man has everything to do with it. A single One.and the camera caught the hall full of his troops in the effort doing a Huzzah. And the room was Full of Men.I am Woman and I bear Witness. . . There is nothing better than Good Men.

Here's a topic for discussion that I'm really interested in, and hope the regular Trump haters drop by and address:

Let's say Trump goes away for a while to Camp David and has a metamorphosis. (I'm thinking of the part of the miniseries I CLAUDIUS in which Caligula goes away for a while and returns to Rome transformed almost overnight from eccentric emperor to totally psychotic, homicidal tyrant.) Let's say Trump returns to the White House and says that he's been reading the finest thinkers in the Democratic Party-- you know, Madonna, Miley Cyrus, Meathead, etc.--and he not only wants to switch parties, but he would like to take the country in a new direction. What would you like him to stop doing, and atwhat policies would you like him to enact?

(Please, "liberals," respond quickly! I'm on tenterhooks wondering what that new direction would be. More statism and less liberty--or the other way around? The suspense is killing me!)

Why I LOATHE the subjective sports in the Olympics: Adam Rippon puts out a gorgeous, near-flawless performance, but he's not 'expected' to finish first. So he doesn't. Patrick Chan is supposed to finish higher, so he does. After falling down in the middle of his performance.

Well what is an objective view of claudius, that considered the environment he aerated in, tacitus, certainly not, suetonius more so, plutarch perhaps the most, but all three wrote long after his term, and were senators to boot.

There ate some parallels of bannons agita with procopius secret history of justinian, a book length diatribe but that was written perhaps a generation after his primary historical account, and revealed long after.

Why I LOATHE the subjective sports in the Olympics: Adam Rippon puts out a gorgeous, near-flawless performance, but he's not 'expected' to finish first. So he doesn't. Patrick Chan is supposed to finish higher, so he does.

The money was tied up in a lawsuit. We had a counterclaim. No decision by any court. Obama caved.

The families of the people killed and held hostage by the Iranians have money judgments against Iran but have ne er collected a dime. I expect the US government will end up paying because Obama gave away that money.

William -- to start he could disclose his tax returns and put his assets in a blind trust like other presidents. You should be concerned that his actions are in part influenced by his desire to increase his personal fortune. I'm sur you would have demanded such transparency if a dem was sitting in the WH.

Fox News just now had a program that a bunch of Nazi art has come to light, in US military vaults somewhere. Including works by Adolf Hitler himself. Struck me because of the prior thread about some chippie trying to find something nice to say about AH.

You should be concerned that his actions are in part influenced by his desire to increase his personal fortune.

No, because I don't believe it to be true. I think you are foolish to dwell on it, or trolling/hypocriting or jockeying for conversational advantage or whatever.

Once you dismiss this entirely from your reckoning, you may understand your opponent better. Trump is, for all intents and purposes, incorruptible.

Trump as the first Lensman President?

No sooner had he turned his Dillingham over to a smiling attendant, however, than he was accosted by a man whom he had never seen before.

"Mr. Samms?" the stranger asked.

"Yes." Samms did not energize his Lens; he had not yet developed either the inclination or the technique to probe instantaneously every entity who approached him, upon any pretext whatever, in order to find out what that entity really wanted.

"I'm Isaacson…' the man paused, as though he bad supplied a world of information.

"Yes?" Samms was receptive, but not impressed.

"Interstellar Spaceways, you know. We've been trying to see you for two weeks, but we couldn't get past your secretaries, so I decided to buttonhole you here, myself. But we're just as much alone here as we would be in either one of our offices—yes, more so. What I want to talk to you about is having our exclusive franchise extended to cover the outer planets and the colonies."

"Just a minute, Mr. Isaacson. Surely you know that I no longer have even a portfolio in the Council; that practically all of my attention is, and for some time to come will be, directed elsewhere?"

"Exactly officially." Isaacson's tone spoke volumes. "But you're still the Boss; they'll do anything you tell them to. We couldn't try to do business with you before, of course, but in your present position there is nothing whatever to prevent you from getting into the biggest thing that will ever be. We are the biggest corporation in existence now, as you know, and we are still growing—fast. We don't do business in a small way, or with small men; so here's a check for a million. credits, or I will deposit it to your account…'

"Well…I…While I admit that we want you pretty badly, you are smart enough to know that we'll get what we want anyway, with or without you. With you, though, it will be easier and quicker, so I am authorized to offer you, besides the twenty six million credits…" he savored the words as he uttered them: "twenty two and one–half percent of Spaceways. On today's market that is worth fifty million credits; ten years from now it will be worth fifty billion. That's my high bid; that's as high as we can possibly go."

"I'm glad to hear that—I'm still not interested," and Samms strode away, calling his friend Kinnison as he did so.

"Rod? Virgil." He told the story.

"Whew!" Kinnison whistled expressively. "They're not pikers, anyway, are they? What a sweet set–up—and you could wrap it up and hand it to them like a pound of coffee…"

"Or you could, Rod."

"Could be…" The big Lensman ruminated. "But what a hookup! Perfectly legitimate, and with plenty of precedents and arguments, of a sort, in its favor. The outer planets. Then Alpha Centauri and Sirius and Procyon and so oh. Monopoly—all the traffic will bear…"

"Slavery, you mean!" Samms stormed. "It would hold Civilization back for a thousand years!"

"Sure, but what do they care?"

"That's it…and he said—and actually believed—that they would get it without my help…I can't help wondering about that."

"Simple enough, Virge, when you think about it. He doesn't know yet what a Lensman is. Nobody does, you know, except Lensmen. It will take some time for that knowledge to get around…"

"And still longer for it to be believed."

From http://www.rulit.me/books/first-lensman-read-402473-13.html

If Trump could be bought, the Left would have tried to buy him already.

Speaking of Claudius & SF, some of A.E van Vogt's more approachable efforts were his "Clane" stories which essentially put "I, Claudius" into the far future. The most recent publication prints the stories as they originaly appeared, not as "fixup" novels, and I found they read much better that way, and are brimming with unexpected wit: Transgalactic

(The cover has essentially nothing at all to do with the book for some reason).

The money was tied up in a lawsuit. We had a counterclaim. No decision by any court. Obama caved.

You're talking about money separate from the JCPOA. It was not a "lawsuit," and we did not have a "counterclaim." The Iran-US Claims Tribunal closed itself to new claims back in the early 1980s, and the money Iran was seeking had to do with money used to purchase American fighter jets in the late 1970s. The reason the US chose to negotiate privately with Iran is because they were pursuing $10 billion at the tribunal and likely could have gotten a ruling in their favor. In this case, a negotiated settlement of $1.7 billion was a prudent decision. You can read John Bellinger of Lawfare on the issue here.

And just to put that $1.7 billion in perspective, during the eight years of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's presidency, Iran received around $800 billion in oil revenues.

We know that nico savaged the reputation of caterina di sforza, Merton the plantagenetzs for the tudor as josephine tey pointed out, alison weir still follows that narrative re Richard 111, whereas phillippa gregory is more skeptical.

The State Department announced yesterday that the United States and Iran had agreed to settle one of the largest remaining claims outstanding at the Iran-US Claims Tribunal in the Hague and that in doing so, the United States had agreed to pay Iran roughly $1.7 billion, consisting of $400 million of Iranian money placed in a Trust Fund to buy U.S. military equipment in the 1970s, plus roughly $1.3 billion in partial payment of interest. We do not have all the details, but this strikes me as a prudent legal/financial settlement and consistent with an approach I have urged for many years, although the timing of yesterday’s announcement makes it appear that it was ransom paid for yesterday’s release of five Americans. It is also unfortunate that the Administration could not settle the remaining claims before the Iran-US Claims Tribunal, so that the 35-year-old vestige of the 1979 hostage crisis can be shut down.I have previously argued in op-eds in both the Washington Post ("The Iran Talks We Should Stop") and the Wall Street Journal ("This Other Deal With Iran Is Obsolete") that the Tribunal, which began operations in 1981, has proved successful over the years but has outlived its original utility and should be terminated. Over the past three decades, the tribunal has issued more than 600 awards and settled more than 4,700 claims. The tribunal has awarded more than $2.5 billion to U.S. claimants and $1 billion to Iranian claimants. In its early years, the Tribunal focused on claims by Americans whose property was expropriated by Iran, but in recent years it has been hearing large claims by the Iranian government against the U.S. government for allegedly blocking exports of billions of dollars in military equipment ordered by the shah of Iran during the 1970s. There was a significant risk that the Tribunal might rule against the U.S. in these cases and order the U.S. Government to pay very large awards to Iran. I have argued that, as part of the Iran-US nuclear deal, “Iran and the U.S. should agree on an overall financial settlement for all remaining claims.” Even if the financial settlement is prudent, the timing and possible linkage to Iran’s release of the five American nationals yesterday are unfortunate. Although it is good to see the Americans finally released, and Administration officials deserve credit for this diplomatic success, it would still be regrettable if Iran received monetary compensation in exchange for Americans detained and held illegally. If the two actions were not linked, the Administration should not have announced the Claims Tribunal settlement on the same day the Americans were released.The State Department press release notes that “There are still outstanding Tribunal claims, mostly by Iran against the U.S. We will continue efforts to address these claims appropriately.” It is possible that the Obama Administration and the State Department also tried to settle these remaining claims (which include an Iranian claim against the U.S. for allegedly interfering in Iran’s internal affairs), but that Iran refused to agree. If so, this is also unfortunate, as it could take another decade to resolve these remaining cases at the Tribunal.

The Iran-US Claims Tribunal has been in existence for nearly 40 years. Most of the claims have been settled, with US nationals receiving around $2.5 billion from Iran for individual claims. The few claims that are left to be adjudicated are intergovernmental claims.

But I do love how State concluded that we were going to lose so pay Iran anyway, Pure speculation and a rationalization.

Given the history of the Tribunal, it was always assumed that the claim would be paid. The sticking point was how much. Iran originally spent $400 million in the late 1970s and was seeking that amount plus interest, totaling about $10 billion.

The JCPOA is a joke and a terrible deal for the US. It is, however, great for Boeing. When Iran tests its nuke next year, we will know State was duped.

Except that the JCPOA puts significant limits on Iran's nuclear program, above and beyond even what they are permitted under the NPT. As for Iran testing a nuke next year, I'll offer you the same wager I offer others. I can give you my contact information. I'll put $1000 in an escrow account and you match it. If Iran does not test a nuke in the next two years, I get the money. If it does, you get the money. Deal?

No, actually, it is not. Had the administration not settled the claim, it would have been put in the hands of a tribunal, and Iran would likely have been awarded significant more money than it agreed to.

Then Obama arranged for them to have money and sanctions lifted.

Obama arranged for them? What about the UK, France, Germany, Russia, and China?

Then Iran very likely has a nuke or two. If not of their own making, then given to them by North Korea.

Absurd. First, it is not possible for Iran to have developed a "nuke or two" without anyone knowing. How could they have tested? Also, there is not a scintilla of evidence that North Korea has provided any nuclear technology to Iran, let alone a "nuke or two."

All of which gets us BACK to the point -- where is the MSM coverage of the latest threat of hostilities or even outright war breaking out between Israel and Iran?

I simply cannot believe that the world is going to sit back and watch Israel bomb all those Iranian Red Crescent volunteers in Syria trying to provide aid to innocent civilians caught up in a war created by the United States.

Well, it did sit back while the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE funded, armed, and trained radical jihadists in Syria to fight a guerrilla war against the government. The Iranians and Russians seemed to have some ridiculous notion that Syria would be better off with Assad in control of his country instead of being a failed state in which violent jihadists are able to operate freely and openly.

The Iranians and Russians seemed to have some ridiculous notion that Syria would be better off with Assad in control of his country instead of being a failed state

True. And I know when I wonder what would be in the best interests of the United States and other nations around the world, the first people I turn to are the Russians and the Iranians, peace be upon them.

"Erin Biba✔@erinbibaHoly shit this ad for Koch Industries trying to pretend they’re not the most evil empire on the face of planet earth. It should’ve said: “We believe in destroying the planet and raping it of all its resources while poisoning you to death with pollution. Also we created Trump.”"

In fact Koch's product makes refining more efficient and thus we use less oil than we otherwise would. On top of that they openly opposed Trump. Left wingers hate them based on propaganda from the people they foolishly trust. It's sad so many Americans are so stupid they fall for this nonsense.

Obama did not "cave." He intended to give that money back to Iran one way or another.And no, he did not "have to." Iran is our enemy.

Then Reagan intended to give money, George H.W. Bush intended to give money, Bill Clinton intended to give money, and George W. Bush intended to give money. All oversaw payments as part of the claims tribunal. The tribunal was created as part of the Algiers Accords.

@Gahrie:

And I know when I wonder what would be in the best interests of the United States and other nations around the world, the first people I turn to are the Russians and the Iranians, peace be upon them.

You have completely missed the point. Supporting Assad was the smarter decision than trying to fund and train a guerilla army to overthrow him. The fact that Russia and Iran agreed is superfluous. And it is moronic to think that we must ipso facto be on the opposing side of any stance Russia and Iran take. If a mass murdered argues for free speech, it doesn't make free speech a bad idea.